2.1 Social Constructionism

The social constructionist approach helps understand people's conceptions of nature and environmental issues (Herda-Rapp and Goedeke 2005). Social constructionists argue that people create their social worlds through social interactions that assign meaning to the environment (Harker and Bates 2007; Herda-Rapp and Marotz 2005; Scarce 1998). The varied meanings of nature created by social groups are instructive about human relationships with nature; they represent and shape how people think about nature and guide how people relate to it and interact with it (Greider and Garkovich 1994; Herda-Rapp and Marotz 2005; Scarce 1998). The multiple constructions of nature result in opposing definitions of landscapes (Greider and Garkovich 1994), animals (Fraser-Celin et al. 2018; Goedeke 2005; Jani 2024; Scarce 1998) and oceans (Hou 2022) within a single society. These multiple constructions of nature are often a source of social conflict over environmental and natural resource issues and are also important in resolving such problems (Herda-Rapp and Goedeke 2005).

In relation to animals, these multiple social constructions help understand stakeholders' competing interests, agendas, socioeconomic needs, priorities, opinions and perspectives regarding wildlife management (Fraser-Celin et al. 2018; Goedeke 2005; Herda-Rapp and Goedeke 2005; Hill 2015; Scarce 1998). For instance, the competing social constructions of the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) in Botswana by different stakeholders—agriculturalists, conservationists and tourism players—reflect the different groups' diverging values, feelings and priorities regarding the management of the species (Fraser-Celin et al. 2018). Similarly, Goedeke (2005) found that the competing social constructions of river otters (Lontra canadensis) by anglers, pond owners and otter protection activists in Missouri, USA, reflected disagreements over their management and appropriate conflict resolution strategies. In the same vein, Rikoon and Albee (1998) viewed the contrasting constructions of free-roaming horses (Equus ferus) in the Missouri Ozarks as symbolic of the power relations between residents and the National Park Service. Likewise, Scarce (1998) showed that for conservation authorities, wolves (C. lupus) symbolised power and control, while for residents bordering Yellowstone National Park, they symbolised self-determination and freedom. These competing constructions of wildlife species reflect the often-overlooked issues underlying the apparent conflict between people and wildlife (Fraser-Celin et al. 2018).

As stakeholder groups assign competing meanings to wildlife, they also create negative images of each other (Harker and Bates 2007). For instance, diverse stakeholders construct meanings of each other that reflect disagreement over wildlife management (Draheim et al. 2021). This was evident in the conflict over coyote (Canis latrans) management strategies in Denver, USA, where differing constructions of coyotes by various stakeholder groups involved in coyote management complicated the resolution of the conflict (Draheim 2012). Similarly, the black bear (Ursus americanus) hunt controversy in New Jersey involved the competing social constructions of bears, hunters, suburban homeowners, animal rights activists and state wildlife managers. The conflict became intractable because of the polarisation between the diverse stakeholder groups, with each group stereotyping the others (Harker and Bates 2007). Advocates of the hunt were described as “murderous, immoral, and barbaric”, while opponents were labelled as “idiots, wackos, and effeminate sorority sisters” (Harker and Bates 2007, 349). This polarisation was also evident in conflicts over wolves (C. lupus) in Norway, where rural citizens viewed the wolf as a symbol of the decline in rural traditions and the urban animal lovers' lack of respect for rural lifestyles. In contrast, urbanites viewed wolves as symbolic of “an authentic, wild nature” (Skogen 2017, 54). Consequently, rural communities blamed the powerful city people, including politicians, resource managers, scientists and environmentalists, whom they felt did not understand the impact of their policies on the rural way of life. The urban people were labelled as “city people” and “extremists” (Krange and Skogen 2011, 225).

In light of the above, this study employs a social constructionist perspective to explore how stakeholders in Chapoto Ward, in the Mid-Zambezi Valley, construct images of one another. These constructions reflect their divergent wildlife management goals and further entrench HWC.

3.1 Study Area

The study was conducted in Chapoto Ward, a dryland area in Mbire District (Figure 1) in the Mid-Zambezi Valley, northern Zimbabwe, from January to March 2018. Chapoto covers an area of 300 km² and is bordered by Mozambique to the east and Zambia to the north, along the Zambezi River. It shares boundaries with the wildlife-rich Chewore and Dande Safari areas (Jani et al. 2019). The Mid-Zambezi Valley is characterised by low and variable rainfall, averaging between 350 and 650 mm/annum, and a mean annual temperature of 25°C (Chanza and Musakwa 2021). The area is covered by a deciduous dry savannah, dominated by Mopane trees (Colophospermum mopane) (Chanza and Musakwa 2021), which provide local communities with ecosystem services, such as timber, fuelwood and construction materials.

Chapoto Ward was chosen for this study due to its conservation significance, as it forms part of the Zimbabwe–Mozambique–Zambia (ZiMoZa) and Lower Zambezi–Mana Pools (LoZaMaP) Transfrontier Conservation Areas. It is also one of the first sites in Zimbabwe where the community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) initiative, represented by the renowned Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), was initiated in 1989. The area has abundant wildlife because it shares immediate boundaries with the Chewore and Dande Safari areas. HWC is a significant issue in the area because wildlife species such as elephants (Loxodonta africana), buffalos (Syncerus caffer), spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) and lions (Panthera leo) share spaces with humans and livestock. Elephants also make incursions into the area from Mozambique and Zambia. Consequently, Chapoto Ward is an ideal location for examining conflict over wildlife, as HWC is a significant issue in the area.

In the Mid-Zambezi Valley, the expansion of agricultural land for cotton production, driven by human population growth, has led to wildlife habitat loss (Baudron et al. 2022). The authors indicate that a recent decline in cotton profitability, coupled with a shift to livestock farming, fuelled drastic land cover changes between 2007 and 2020. As a result, habitat loss has increased contact between people and wildlife, leading to negative interactions commonly referred to as HWC (Jani et al. 2020). The negative interactions include crop destruction, livestock predation, property damage, human injuries and deaths and restrictions on people's movement (Jani et al. 2023). Additionally, competing land uses and socioeconomic interests, such as cotton farming, conservation and safari hunting, have resulted in increased conflict between diverse stakeholder groups (Jani 2024). The reliance of local communities on forest resources, such as firewood, building materials, fruits, edible wild foods and honey, also increases their chances of coming into contact with wildlife (Chanza and Musakwa 2021; Jani et al. 2022).

The abundance of wildlife in the area supported the implementation the CAMPFIRE programme in 1989 as a pathway to potentially ensure human–wildlife coexistence (Tchakatumba et al. 2019). Under this initiative, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management, now known as Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks), delegated wildlife management to Rural District Councils (RDCs). These councils market wildlife to international hunters on behalf of local communities neighbouring protected, providing economic benefits (Dhliwayo, Muboko, Mashapa, et al. 2023; Tchakatumba et al. 2019). The rationale behind CAMPFIRE was to encourage local communities to develop a sense of ownership over wildlife resources and to use them sustainably, benefiting from conservation rewards (Dhliwayo, Muboko, Mashapa, et al. 2023). RDCs have contractual arrangements with safari operators that facilitate controlled trophy hunting (Dhliwayo, Muboko, Mashapa, et al. 2023; Jani et al. 2022; Matema and Andersson 2015). Through CAMPFIRE, local communities benefit from employment opportunities, game meat, drought relief and infrastructure development (Dhliwayo, Muboko, Mashapa, et al. 2023; Tchakatumba et al. 2019). However, the failure to devolve authority over resource management to the subdistrict level has undermined CAMPFIRE. This has led to the capture of safari hunting benefits by local elites and an unfair representation of local citizens in decision-making processes (Jani et al. 2022; Matema and Andersson 2015). Furthermore, the programme has failed to resolve HWC, as the benefits from CAMPFIRE do not offset the costs of living with wildlife (Jani et al. 2023).

Chapoto Ward is populated by two ethnic groups, namely, the Chikunda (agriculturalists) and the Doma (former hunter–gatherers). It comprises five Village Development Committees (VIDCOs) divided into 24 villages. The VIDCOs are Chiramba and Mariga on the western side of the Mwanzamtanda River, inhabited by the Doma, and Chansato, Chiruhwe and Nyaruparo on the eastern side, populated by the Chikunda. According to the 2022 census, Chapoto Ward has 952 households and a total population of 3773 (Zimstats 2022).

Dryland agriculture and livestock rearing are the main livelihood activities in Chapoto. The Chikunda grow cotton as a cash crop and rear cattle (Bos taurus) and goats (Capra hircus). Both the Doma and the Chikunda grow maize (Zea mays) and drought-tolerant crops such as sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and millet (Pennisetum glaucum) in upland fields, and they also grow vegetables along the banks of the Mwanzamtanda River. The economic activities of the Doma also include pottery making, foraging for edible plants, gathering wild fruits, honey extraction, fishing, providing wage labour and illegal hunting, which is carried out clandestinely (Jani 2022).

3.2 Study Design

The philosophical positions that informed the qualitative research methodology employed in this study were constructionism and interpretivism. Snape and Spencer (2003, 3) define qualitative research as an “in-depth and interpreted understanding of the social world of research participants by learning about their social and material circumstances, experiences, perspectives, and histories”. Ontologically, constructionism posits that different people have multiple ways of understanding the world in which they live. Epistemologically, the paradigm postulates that knowledge is socially constructed through human engagement with the physical world (Scotland 2012).

HWC is a complex problem underlain by social conflict (Dickman 2010; Herda-Rapp and Goedeke 2005; Madden and McQuinn 2014). As such, a qualitative approach offers an in-depth understanding of the issues underlying HWC, such as emotions, relationships and values, as well as historical, cultural, economic and political factors (Rust et al. 2017). For this reason, the constructionist paradigm was deemed appropriate for this study, as the researcher aimed to explore how participants constructed varied images of each other, shaped by their divergent agendas, experiences, perspectives, priorities and values regarding wildlife management.

3.3 Sample Size and Data Collection

Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Mbire RDC and local gatekeepers, namely, Chief Chapoto and the local Councillor. My positionality, which encompasses my identity, personal experiences and philosophical stance (Yip 2023), influenced my access to research participants. As a researcher from Harare, the capital city of Zimbabwe, with no prior experience in HWCs and a limited understanding of the local culture, I held a position of relative power over the marginalised subsistence farmers, especially Doma participants, who were at the bottom of the social hierarchy. This power imbalance was mitigated by working closely with the local councillor and traditional leaders, as well as hiring two local male research assistants knowledgeable about the community's culture to assist with data collection. Over time, trust was built, and this power inequality was reduced through the influence of the research assistants, who helped establish rapport with the participants.

Before the interviews commenced, the researcher explained the purpose of the study, informed participants that they were free to withdraw at any point, guaranteed their anonymity, and also assured them of the confidentiality of their responses. Verbal consent was then obtained before conducting the interviews.

Data were collected through semistructured interviews, a focus group discussion, document analysis and participant observation. A sample population of 60 heads of households was selected from 952 households using systematic random sampling to respond to face-to-face interviews. The first household was purposively selected, after which households were selected at regular intervals. The Sampling Interval (SI) was calculated by dividing the total number of households by the sample size (SI = 952/60 = 15). Hence, every 15th household was selected for inclusion in the study. A small sample size was deemed sufficient because the study aimed for an in-depth understanding of the issues under investigation. A total of 39 male and 21 female participants were interviewed, and each interview lasted approximately one and a half hours. Interviews were conducted in Chikunda and Chidoma (a mixture of Chishona and Chikunda) and later translated into English. Data collection continued until no new information emerged from the interviews (Guest et al. 2006). This theoretical saturation helped to increase the transparency of the research findings. The interview guide was refined during a pilot study conducted in Matenhahunga Village in Chiruhwe VIDCO, which was not one of the sampled villages (Majid et al. 2017). The pilot study helped clarify any ambiguities in the questions, explore emerging themes, and determine the approximate duration of the interviews.

Twelve key informants, selected using purposive and snowball sampling for their expertise on the issues under investigation, responded to in-depth face-to-face interviews. Their selection was also based on their roles and positions held in the community, with assistance from the Chief and Councillor. These included the CAMPFIRE Association Director, a ZimParks official, a Mbire RDC official, the Chapoto Ward Wildlife Management Committee (WWMC) vice-chairperson, the Antipoaching Unit (APU) chairperson, the ward agricultural extension officer, a representative from a local nongovernmental organisation, the Lower Guruve Development Association, a Doma village head, a Chikunda village head, the Safari Operator (Charlton McCallum Safaris), and the local Chief and Councillor.

A focus group session was conducted at the Chapoto Business Centre with 10 discussants selected for their profound knowledge of the issues under investigation. The business centre was chosen for its convenience to participants from all five VIDCOs. The focus group included a member of the APU and WWMC, an ex-WWMC member, a Doma village head, a Chikunda village head, two Doma women, two Chikunda women, and a local agricultural expert. The participants were selected with the assistance of the Chief and Councillor.

Document analysis was also used to supplement the interview data. Documents gathered included the Parks and Wildlife Act, records of problem animal causality from the Mbire RDC, revenue records from consumptive tourism managed by the WWMC, and records of livestock predation, HWC injuries, and fatalities from the ward APU and the Mbire RDC. Additionally, the semistructured interviews were complemented by participant observation, which involved observing routine activities and attending VIDCO meetings. This approach helped to gain a deeper understanding of the local community's interactions with wildlife. The use of multiple data collection methods, including triangulation, enhanced the trustworthiness, credibility, rigour and quality of the research findings (Flick 2004).

3.4 Data Analysis

After interview transcription, the collected data were analysed inductively and thematically. This involved grouping the data into themes or categories to form a comprehensive picture of the participants' responses (Creswell 2009). The analysis followed the coding procedures suggested by Creswell (2009, 185–190), which included the following steps: preparing raw data files in Microsoft Word, carefully reading all the transcriptions to become familiar with the interview data, reading through the transcriptions multiple times to identify emerging themes, coding the data by classifying it into different headings or codes, grouping these codes into categories or themes, and refining the codes and categories by linking similar aspects. The categories reflected the meanings attributed to the diverse stakeholders. Relevant quotes from the interviews were selected to support the themes that emerged from the data. Participants were assigned pseudonyms to maintain anonymity and ensure confidentiality, in accordance with ethical guidelines (Creswell 2009).

4.1 Powerful Outsiders

The local communities socially constructed the safari operators, ZimParks officials and Mbire RDC officials as “outsiders”. Led by their Chief, the locals expressed strong opposition to the imposition of the interests of “powerful outsiders”. They were particularly against the leasing of hunting concessions without their involvement and did not want “outsiders” to take the lead in wildlife conservation or in managing the CAMPFIRE programme. As one respondent stated: “Outsiders are taking a leading role in the management of wildlife at the expense of locals who share land with the animals” (Elderly Chikunda male respondent, Chiruhwe).

The local people's sentiments reflect their discontent with the lack of control over natural resources. This frustration stems from the conservation authorities' implementation of safari hunting in partnership with external conservation interests, such as safari operators, while local communities—who carry the burden of the challenges associated with living in close proximity to wildlife—are only minimally involved. As a result, these communities feel frustrated, marginalised, powerless and disempowered by the powerful elite who control decision-making. Residents are reminded that they have no de jure control over wildlife resources, as government structures are responsible for all decisions related to their management. This situation is further exacerbated by the devolution of authority over wildlife management to RDCs, instead of local subdistrict institutions.

4.2 Ignorant and Inconsiderate

Most respondents cited the failure of the conservation authorities to respond to repeated reports of hippopotamuses (Hippopotamus amphibius) and elephants that destroyed crops along the banks of the Mwanzamtanda River and damaged a fence at the Chimata Irrigation Scheme. Participants felt that ZimParks and Mbire RDC officials were more interested in enforcing antipoaching laws and profiting from safari hunting than addressing the damage caused by wildlife. They also noted that conservation authorities ignored the dangers faced by the community, including the anxiety of potential wildlife attacks, the fear of crop destruction and the sleepless nights spent guarding crops. This was compounded by the lack of insurance or compensation for the communities affected by crop destruction, property loss, or even human injuries or death. As a result, damage-causing animals were viewed as problem animals belonging to the conservation authorities rather than as wildlife owned by the community.

This example supports the local communities' claim that conservation authorities value wildlife over the safety and livelihoods of people. The residents felt that, since they lived with wildlife, the conservation authorities should devolve the responsibility of dealing with problem animals, along with the necessary resources, to the local APU, with the authorities maintaining an oversight role. In contrast, ZimParks believed that empowering communities to deal with problem animals would lead to abuse of the system, with people killing nonoffending animals for meat.

4.3 Habitat Destroyers and Poachers

This sentiment reflects how conservationists disregarded the safety of local communities living near protected areas. The authorities failed to address the legitimate concerns of agropastoralists, framing the local people as insensitive intruders in wildlife territory. By doing so, they delegitimise the claims of agropastoralists, who viewed wildlife as a threat to their livelihoods and safety. This narrative also denied the vulnerability of these communities, portraying them not as victims of problem animals but as people deserving to be terrorised by wildlife.

Both the Chikunda and Doma participants expressed concern at the conservation authorities' stereotypical view of male victims of wildlife attacks as “poachers”, even though these individuals were attacked while performing everyday tasks, such as walking between villages, gathering firewood or going to the river for fishing. Participants noted that park officials only responded to reports of problem animals when a female was killed because women were not perceived as poachers. One participant remarked: “When a person is injured or killed by wild animals, they ask if it's a man or woman. Men are seen as poachers” (Elderly Doma male respondent, Mariga). Another participant lamented: “The fact that conservationists label us as poachers shows that we are not important. They do not appreciate our role in conserving wildlife on the ground” (Elderly Doma female respondent, Mariga).

Participants cited several examples of victims of wildlife attacks who were labelled as poachers. These included three Doma men killed by rampaging lions in 2010, a Doma man killed by a crocodile while fishing along the banks of the Zambezi River in 2013, a Doma man killed by a wounded buffalo while walking to Nyaruparo from Mariga in 2014, a Doma man killed by a leopard on his way to fish in the Zambezi River in 2015, a Chikunda man trampled to death by an elephant at Sawasawa Lodge, his workplace, in 2015, and a Doma man killed by a wounded buffalo while collecting firewood in 2016.

The conservationists' stance demonstrates a lack of concern for the safety of local people. The fact that the majority of victims of wildlife attacks were Doma allowed conservation authorities to label those attacked as poachers. Additionally, the Doma's foraging lifestyle and their involvement in clandestine hunting led to their being socially constructed as “illiterate”, “primitive”, “backward”, “consumers of bush foods”, “foragers” and “hunter–gatherers”. Consequently, their involvement in clandestine hunting resulted in them being physically assaulted whenever snares were found in the mountains bordering Chiramba and Mariga. This prompted the local communities to describe the conservationists as “cruel” for physically assaulting the Doma for alleged poaching without providing supporting evidence. The Doma argued that the conservation authorities failed to understand the impact of their “heartless conservation policies” on their foraging way of life. They also pointed out the hypocrisy of allowing professional hunters from outside the country to “kill animals for fun” while the people who lived alongside the wildlife were prohibited from hunting.

The labelling of the locals as poachers represents a perpetuation of the colonial legacy, where Indigenous communities were viewed as habitat destroyers, poachers and incapable of managing wildlife resources, while Europeans were positioned as protectors of wildlife. This paternalistic view places external actors or conservationists as the only authorities on wildlife conservation, further excluding Indigenous communities from decision-making and alienating them from the natural resources they supposedly have ownership over.

4.4 Uncaring, Greedy and Selfish

Local citizens described Mbire RDC officials as “uncaring” because they failed to provide financial assistance to victims of wildlife attacks. The RDC was supposed to pay USD300.00 in funeral assistance and cover hospital bills for fatalities and injuries caused by wildlife. However, participants revealed that the outstanding balances on funeral assistance and medical reimbursements date back to 2012. One respondent reported that the council only provided a coffin and failed to pay USD300.00 for the victim who was killed by a buffalo in 2016, citing a lack of funds. Another person injured by a buffalo in 2016 did not receive reimbursement for medical bills. This concern was raised by one respondent who said: “The RDC is misusing money allocated for victims of wildlife attacks. They always say there is no money, but this is provided for in the Council's annual budget” (Young Chikunda female respondent, Nyaruraro).

Participants also argued that the Mbire RDC was not using the 25% of trophy hunting revenue allocated for wildlife management and problem animal control (PAC), as sometimes the RDC made communities purchase ammunition for PAC. As one participant said: “The RDC tells us to source ammunition even though they receive money for PAC from CAMPFIRE” (Focus group discussion).

Furthermore, participants labelled RDC officials as “selfish” and “greedy” because they deprived local communities of game meat from PAC. The allocation of game meat to households had significantly declined due to the appropriation of meat for personal benefit by the elite, including politicians, Mbire RDC officials, the local ward Councillor and the Chief, who controlled decision-making. This was attributed to the recentralisation of wildlife resource governance, enabled by the government's appointment of local councillors as chairpersons of WWMCs. This shift led to the exclusion of local communities from participatory decision-making processes. Consequently, the apparent conflict between people and wildlife evolved into a conflict between local people and conservation authorities, which, in turn, fostered negative attitudes towards wildlife and protected area authorities.